Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Consent) - CPAS23 (16) Chancey Road Townhomes CPAS II– Providing for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And Sheet 23) from RES-6 (Residential-6 Du/Ga) to RES-9 (Residential-9 Du/Ga) on Approximately 30.26 Acres of Real Property Located on the Southeast Intersection of Chancey Road and Diana Drive And Providing for Additional Text Amendments as Necessary for Internal Consistency; Providing for a Repealer, Severability, and an Effective Date.

1:51:53Good afternoon. I'm Kristen Keen with Planning and Development.

1:52:02I'm here to talk to you today about a comprehensive plan amendment, PDD 24-0007. This is CPAS 2316, Chansey Road Town Home 2, CPAS 2.

1:52:18This is a comprehensive plan amendment. If you feel like you are having deja vu reading these documents, that's because last year you actually approved this. We are currently asking the applicants asking it to go from res 6 to res 9. They are looking to develop 158 town homes on approximately 30.26 acres on the southeast intersection. of Chansey Road and Diana Drive. This was actually approved, adopted on September

1:52:4920th, 2022, to go from res 3 to res 6. The 158 townhomes is actually a deed restriction. What happened is that there is a category three wetland on this property, and that wetland actually delineated larger than expected. So they don't have the capacity for the hundred and fifty eight townhomes.

1:53:13This is the current site location. It is in the South Market area. It is also in an urban service expansion area.

1:53:23This is an aerial map that you can see, surrounding areas.

1:53:30This is the context map. You can see that this property is currently sitting in the urban service expansion area and it is also surrounded by an urban concentration area.

1:53:47The access to this property is going to be on Chansey Road, which is a two-lane county maintained collector road with approximately 120 feet of right-of-way.

1:54:00That right there you can see the category three wetland.

1:54:07This is the surrounding future land use.

1:54:15Here is the existing future land use. We are going to a It's currently a Rossix. Going to a res nine.

1:54:29The zoning is already taken care of. It is currently a M M F One.

1:54:38This amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Policy flu 1.2, concentration of urban densities. Policy flu 143, transitional land uses. Policy flu 919, urban service area expansion.

1:54:59Um, one thing that I do want to bring up, we did have a change in the utilities capacity statement that actually just was brought forth today by utilities. There is going to be a re uh revision with the reclaimed water. They are no longer going the development within this property will not be required to connect to the Pasco County Utilities Reclaimed Water System. And that was utilities that made that Statement. We are recommending that the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent

1:55:29with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Does anybody have any questions for me?

1:55:36Yeah, I have one quick question if you don't mind.

1:55:38Sure.

1:55:39What's the logic? Yeah, not connecting to reclaimed water.

1:55:45Um I did not know. That was something that the applicant agreed upon with utilities, but

1:55:52I can actually help you with that because I had a question unrelated to that please conversation with utilities before the meeting today. And that is because the distance is so great to connect that utilities doesn't want to have developers running Long distances of reclaim mains of which they will have to maintain over the years when there's only the

1:56:22small demand on the end of the pipe.

1:56:24Yeah, in this case, Peter, the the nearest reclaim is about 4,000 feet away.

1:56:29Okay, but that's the current. Will there be development down the road, looking down the road? for additional reclaimed water. The reason I bring it up is we know we're in a water shortage.

1:56:40Hmm?

1:56:42Desalination plants are expensive to maintain, to build. I just see the the long range plan for the future for This will come back to hot. people who live in Pasco County because of a water shortage. And with more people coming in, The population continues to grow, which means we're going to have more homes. We're

1:57:13going to have more lawns. And to me it

1:57:17I I think it's important to consider in in your discussion is the distance to get to that existing infrastructure. Even if even if you were gonna saddle the existing developer with Putting in all this additional reclaim pipe. the county has to maintain that additional length of reclaim pipe for years with no flow in the line. So it becomes a it becomes not only a burden on the developer but also on the county itself.

1:57:41This is it's a it's a constant conundrum to deal with when you're extending utilities. For instance, we may know that in the future we could have ten thousand new homes in the area, but we're only gonna get one thousand today. So do we go and we build an eight inch pipe to deal with one thousand homes or do we do we Build a 24-inch pipe to deal with 10,000 future homes that may be decades before they get there. And then the problem that we have is that we have a water

1:58:11main that has so much capacity that it constantly has to be flushed because the water is dead and stale at the end of that pipe because there's no current demand. Stormwater pipes we can oversize, no problem. It but when we're talking about pressurized utilities, that's the constant conundrum that you have to deal with. And I I I understand your point. Is that still a problem with reclaimed water though? I mean do you have to flush those lines just to say? No, but the problem is

1:58:41is you still have to keep that line pressurized, okay? So that takes constant power and pumping to keep that line pressurized. It's constant. constant cost to operate that main when you may not have the demand to support the operation and maintenance cost of that main. Uh for this particular case this is probably moved. This is Comp Plan amendment. We don't get to condition that ye shall connect to utilities or what if there was a rezoning or something we might be

1:59:11able to do that.

1:59:14But I understand your I understand your point. I do too. I will I will tell you that you're not the only one on this board who has big concerns about the region's water supply. Um in fact I spent a couple sleepless nights about it tonight, but then after speaking with our new chairman of the county commission who's a member of the Board of Tampa Bay Water, I feel a little bit more at ease but I can understand Why there's the concern.

1:59:46We all know that additional development in this area will continue forward with either commercial or homes. And I just can see the uh I understand where you're coming from about the if you if you install the infrastructure now, it will sit for a number of years.

2:00:08Peter for for this one, I believe this in this agenda item is really I mean remember this was this was approved as res six. They had to come back and they're getting approval for res nine. I believe this project is already even further down the road. I believe they already have a service connection application with the County Utilities Department. So this is really just cleaning up what has already been approved. Thank you. But I I understand your point.

2:00:36Correct.

2:00:37So I

2:00:38made my point.

2:00:39A question related to the application and that is How did the wetland grow?

2:00:46Um so according to Pasco Mapper, the wetland is 4.16 acres. When it was delineated, it came back at 5.439 acres. So it at the current res 6 they would be 10 units short for the 158 pounds.

2:01:08And they didn't move on to the right-of-way. So there's no requirement to do a jurisdictional determin I mean, you require a survey when somebody applies for rezoning, there's no requirement to do a jurisdictional determination for wetlands because that's Key to the calculation of the allowable density.

2:01:27Um, I'm not sure on that, to be honest with you.

2:01:36Is there someone that is?

2:01:38Barbara Terry, does anybody wanna

2:01:41This is Terry. Um the the question is whether or not we we require a jurisdictional delineation at the time of a future land use map amendment. Or at zoning?

2:01:54Correct. That's the question, yes.

2:01:56At zoning.

2:01:58So what we're seeing is okay, we're hearing that it sounds like that during the entitlement phase they made a guesstimate of how many wetlands to estimate the amount of entitlements that they could get, but then it turns out in reality that they don't actually have that entitlement because the wetlands are larger

2:02:22And so I'm asking there's no requirement for them to actually do a determination at the time of rezoning and in some ways I'm gonna say that's a little fair to the unfair to the Planning Commission and to the Board of Commissioners because if we knew wetlands were bigger, we might have had a different decision when the original case was heard.

2:02:41Um Um Mr. Chairman M my understanding. I'm not the Chairman Mariano. Yeah. Well, my understanding of the uh of the way the development review process works is that if there is a limiting factor, such as a larger wetland, it's simply going to contain and cause the technical documents like the site plans and the engineering documents to respond to that. So the land use is if the land use is appropriate for residential, the residential land

2:03:11use is applied on the property. And then as it uh as entitlements are identified, we we determine what quantities everyone is, maximum quantities let's say everyone is comfortable with. And as the site plans come in and they try to fit those entitlements on the property once all the various constraints are considered. It shakes out to what it's going to

2:03:34uh

2:03:34into what is ultimately going to be built. So at that point the the wetland delineations are gonna play a much greater role in the site planning phases than if we

2:03:44Okay, but I guess so what I'm asking is and I understand that exactly. But so then their response to that is, well then I'll just come and ask for more density.

2:03:54Yeah.

2:03:55res going from res six to res nine and although I understand there's a recorded deed restriction if this would have happened on a property where there wasn't a recorded deed restriction. Would be offering to give them 50% more density. Because they made a mistake.

2:04:13But I I don't think if I'm unless I'm wrong, they're not asking for any more units. They're just asking I mean I guess technically they're asking for

2:04:22higher density.

2:04:31So they won't actually achieve nine units to the acre, but had this been in another

2:04:36problem.

2:04:37property where there wasn't I'm not looking particularly at this case, I'm looking to the future, or are there other ones out here that the same possibility exists? And do we want to get in the habit of the habit of saying, Well, we're sorry that you didn't do your homework on the front end Here we'll just give you some more density to make it all better later.

2:04:58So Barbara Willheight, sixty three twenty-seven Grand Boulevard for the applicant. Haven't had this situation in twenty seven years, either time up the county or so I don't think this is a habit. I think this is just a a a circumstance that happened. The zoning, the M F one zoning has a deed restriction, one hundred and fifty eight units. So this is a request for a comprehensive plan amendment to make that consistent. This is not the rule, this is just something that happened. And um And don't get me wrong enough.

2:05:26I'm not opposed to this project, Barbara. What I'm looking at is I think this is a horrible precedent to set for other developers. I mean if you if you're serious about developing in this county Then you have the obligation to go do some due diligence and I can tell you that the cost to go delineate five acres of wetland is probably chump change if you can avoid afford to build a hundred and fifty eight multifamily.

2:05:55Exactly. Right.

2:05:57Well we understand all that. It It certainly certainly

2:06:00Well you you've also got the I mean Chris you could probably chime in a little further here on this too, but I mean you've also got the process process of of sending sending environmental scientists out there to flag where he thinks it is versus going through the whole process with Swift Mud and getting that formal determination and approval done. So

2:06:15we do 'em all the

2:06:15time

2:06:16and I know some Some environmental scientists are better than others, but I don't see flags move by hundreds of feet when I go out there. They move by a foot or two feet.

2:06:28I apologize for bringing up the issue of reclaimed water.

2:06:34I have a passion for it, but I guess my passion is being Well my passion still isn't it.

2:06:52I'm only kidding.

2:06:54In my experiences this is kind of an anomalous situation because typically a developer would look at the polarity wetland condition and and look at the Yeah, so this is you know to Barbara's point, this is fairly anomalous.

2:07:08Well obviously the the comp the um concept plan had to change some in order to fit that density on a smaller piece of of dirt, I guess. So what um you know, I mean would do you have to consider shaving off ten ten units in order to fit the same density?

2:07:25So No. Eric, they have full construction plans in, properties under contract, so this would hurt this property owner. And it doesn't i i yes, you know, it's it happened and we're here, there's a fix for it. Doesn't change the density it's approved, doesn't change what was approved on the zoning, and we're just asking for the fix so we don't hurt the property owner. I mean, just what it comes down to.

2:07:53And there is a deed restriction on the property?

2:07:55There is, cannot be changed. So ultimately doesn't change those units.

2:08:00If there weren't a deed restriction I'd feel a lot differently, but it's just like

2:08:04Exactly.

2:08:06Dennis

2:08:06Yeah, I'm sorry, I've been trying to jump in to say that there is a requirement that if a property has wetlands you have to submit a wetland delineation survey together with the rezoning action. That is a requirement.

2:08:18Down done. Any idea why, what happened?

2:08:22Um the only thing that I can think of with this one is that originally this was an MPUD rezoning application and it was transferred to a Euclidean, so there may have been I'm I'm trying to look through the record to see if I could find the the wetland delineation. But

2:08:37under you're saying under the normal circumstance.

2:08:40Correct. The application specifically I will read it verbatim. Uh proposed use development. Two sign and sealed boundary survey, legal descriptions and sketches, or property survey by a registered surveyor, including wetland, if any, delineation, to be submitted at time of application. That is a requirement of a rezoning application.

2:08:59Okay.

2:09:05Good.

2:09:06Right.

2:09:09Any other discussion?

2:09:10You have public comment.

2:09:12Uh yeah. So uh anybody here to speak on this item?

2:09:19Sorry about that. We got to talking about reclaimed water and wetlands so long I forgot where it

2:09:23was. I'm watching the clock. Uh my name is Brenda Doherty. I live at [address removed], which is south of this uh development. And my first point is that no one on Maisie Drive got any notices in the mail of the uh first meeting. We did I haven't received anything. So I missed the first meeting because the sign is very small. I don't know If you can adjust

2:09:54that sign to make it a little more noticeable. Today I looked at the sign for this meeting and it was flat up against the fence and not visible for when you're pulling in or out of Diana Drive. So Many people did not see the sign and I'm speaking for the ten people who live on Maisie Drive, which is south and behind where the townhouses are gonna be. Had I known about the earlier meeting, I would definitely have come and and uh expressed my objections

2:10:24at that time, but I obviously am too late. to the party it's already been pretty much approved. Uh the big concern we have is not only traffic but also noise pollution, light pollution, just toxic runoff into the wetlands area. Uh water, our wells are ninety feet deep. We're concerned about four hundred more people using more water there. If there's two people per

2:10:55unit that would be like 400 people, 400 more cars. In addition, all of the surrounding neighborhood is one family on two and a half to five acres. Some people have 10 acres and now we have this very incongruous townhouse population density quite quite larger than everyone the neighborhood. So

2:11:22Can you

2:11:22really have a map so we can see where she's.

2:11:28It also seems to me that because this is a commercial development basically, meaning that it's a rental I'm assuming townhouses are rentals. I have one minute. That uh the people who are renting are not gonna be the same as someone who

2:11:48Pecanda or whatever has the current residents who all care very deeply about the area. So that's another concern that these four hundred people are gonna be rentals renters rather than owners who care whether Santa Cranes are flying.

2:12:08Patty did you have a map to put up are you working

2:12:09on it? Ask if you'll show us where you live just in general. Townhouses.

2:12:14So you go down Diana Drive, there's a you go uh east towards Rio One on Shim. Similar just like a block or two actually it's two lots, so it would be two and a half acres twice. And then I live at the end of that. So Yeah. Uh it's hard to

2:12:34just because they're attached units.

2:12:38Yes.

2:12:39Townhouses. They're generally platted. The the the the occupant owner owns the land under the townhouse. Those are Those are fee simple ownership. Now not to say somebody can't rent their townhouse, but again there's no prohibition against you renting your house either.

2:12:58So let me make sure I understand.

2:13:00But it's not an apartment complex.

2:13:01So basically the townhouses will be sold individually the way a condo would be sold?

2:13:07Yes. Similarly, yes.

2:13:08Okay. I did not realize that. I thought they were just

2:13:11Yes, they'll be individual owners. Now of course there's nothing that stops them from renting their property, just as there's nothing that stops you, but it's not

2:13:20Okay. But they don't have two and a half acres that they take care of and I it is different. I understand. And the cars, the many, many cars on Chansey Road, and on 301 and on Takes me an hour to go get my granddaughter now. What used to take me twenty minutes takes me a full hour. So

2:13:40So if we weren't to approve this today

2:13:46Well, they wouldn't get a hundred and fifty eight units because They don't have the density entitlement, but they might get a hundred and fifty or they might get a hundred and forty nine, so I don't think there's any stopping the train. What we're really talking about is the last ten or twelve units here. Today.

2:14:06I understand that. And I know this is probably not the place or the time.

2:14:10I am concerned a little bit your comments about the sign. Where did you see the sign?

2:14:14The sign is on Chansey Road. It's facing Chansey Road. So if you pull into our Guyana, it's back in the weeds against the fence. It's a farm fence. Okay. It's back there against the fence. Every person I I called a lot of people.

2:14:31Then did you get a mailed notice?

2:14:33No, I got no mail notice of any kind. The only reason I knew about the meeting was actually because my neighbor who lives on Diana had written a letter about the uh ecological impacts that she was worried about. And she mentioned the meeting, I was like, What? I don't know anything about that and none of the people I talked to on Macy Drive got letters or any kind of notice of any

2:14:57Which one's Mace?

2:14:59But Maisie is not on the main draw.

2:15:01So normally in our report, in our staff report here, and I don't see one, they normally show the the radius in which they noticed the public about the hearing. I don't see that exhibit in this report today.

2:15:18Well, I I was disappointed. I didn't get any notice for any meeting. Not even not the one prior that was the planning one or whatever that was. And the people I talked to today, none of them had notices. So in fact I found out about the whole development off of Facebook. Someone sent me a Facebook map and I was like, What? I don't know anything about this. And of course that was already passed. the meeting, the September meeting, so It's too late for me to do anything to come and to voice

2:15:48my opinion.

2:15:50Denise, do you have information on the notices that went out?

2:15:53Um that was handled by Ms uh Kristen King, so she should have that information. I don't see it in the working file.

2:16:01Yeah, normally there's an exhibit that shows the radius in which they sent out the notices.

2:16:11I don't know how

2:16:11to do it.

2:16:13So Are you able to measure a distance on that, Denise? I uh is Maisie Drive within five hundred or a thousand I don't know what what's the noticing distance on this five hundred 'cause it's res six? That's correct. So I will do a So Maisie's probably beyond the five hundred.

2:16:29It it may well be, but it will affect our water, it will affect our Uh drainage and So what

2:16:36is this this is gonna be on public utilities? All right, so that's not an effect on your well.

2:16:42Well it depends. Depends what how they set up their drainage and whether they drain water that normally would come downhill to our to our properties. But possi I don't know. I'm not a scientist, I'm just a homeowner, you know.

2:16:57Okay. Well,

2:16:58I'm actually a retired West Several Hills elementary teacher.

2:17:03So the noticing would pick up at least uh four parcels on Maisie Drive.

2:17:08Okay, I we didn't

2:17:10If you if you live at the end of Maisie Drive you would you would have been no noticed on this one.

2:17:15I live right at the at the intersection of Schembler.

2:17:21No, that that's that's out of that. Um so So it would it would have picked up [address removed] as a um person, it would have picked up [address removed]. I guess this is called [address removed] is the physical address 'cause there's a a road in the back. It would have also picked up uh [address removed], but it would have not picked up anyone at the intersection of Schindler and Maisie, because that was beyond that would have been beyond the five hundred foot notification.

2:17:51Okay.

2:17:53I understand. I

2:17:56The commissioners

2:17:57on Tuesday asked about signs as well. I'm hoping that I like I d didn't hear a definitive answer to that on Tuesday as to when the new signs are. This is something that's been talked about now for more than a year. I don't understand what the hold up is in getting the signs. a larger sign. Right? Now twenty-four by thirty-six, if I'm driving fifty miles an hour, there's no way I could see a one inch high letter written on a twenty-four by thirty-six sign. It's unfair

2:18:27to the population.

2:18:28The other issue is that the print on the signs is very light.

2:18:32Yes, I I understand that. There was some direction to get larger signs and I don't understand what's the hold up to get the larger signs 'cause I know if I need a sign I can call the sign shop and I'll have it in a week. So I don't understand what the problem is. But I I thank I see this as constant with the public that I didn't see the signs. I follow the Facebook group. There's constant banter on the Facebook group about the signs. That's something that

2:19:02we really need to work Faster. To correct.

2:19:09Very good. Thank you for coming out.

2:19:15Barbara Wellheit. We have noticed it I mean we noticed three times now um this property. the property just falls out of the 500 feet. There is a board meeting. Um we will go out and make sure we move the sign so it has more of an angle. Um As well as we did put the neighbor in touch with the engineer who's got construction plans in for review right now. And the offer was she's got neighbors that want to ask questions, he's made himself

2:19:45available, so by this process she actually has the ability to talk to the engineer and talk about you know, whatever it is, the questions. That's that's where she can get the answers regarding drainage and and flow of water and wetlands and stormwater ponds and 'cause they had a conversation bef before um at the beginning of the meeting. So So that process will go on. Uh And her neighbor she'll get her answers her questions answered and they'll be able to give input to um to the client and uh their engineer.

2:20:16Are you good? Okay.

2:20:20Any other questions?

2:20:23I'll echo what John was saying though. I think you know for for the BOCC and staff that's listening to us, we definitely need to improve our noticing uh abilities because this is not the first time we've had someone come up and say they didn't hear about it, they didn't see it, and see the sign or whatever. So it's definitely an It just seems

2:20:42that it's an easy problem to fix. It we we shouldn't have to have constant co- complaints that I didn't see the I couldn't see the sign.

2:20:53Right, yeah. So not our not our job to fix it, but um but for those that

2:20:58are listening. Just a second, yeah. We brought up a problem. Can we make a suggestion to I mean I seen some counties uh in the area who've had Brad, do you want to weigh in?

2:21:09Mr. Jeremy.

2:21:11Okay.

2:21:12So since Jerry's hanging out of your house, I'll weigh in real quick. This is on our front burner. We are in the process of revamping the entire notification process, everything from the website to the signs, all of it. So it's it's going. It's not forgotten. Uh it is there are some complicated aspects to it because we're transitioning a few of the pieces and how they're done. Uh for example the county currently buys the signs in bulk and everybody has to come and pick up signs and do different things. We're kinda changing that whole thing as well. So there's

2:21:42a lot to the process, but it is front burner. So

2:21:46Any idea time frame?

2:21:49Uh Mr. Chairman Mariano.

2:21:54Um the the time frame that we're shooting for right now is February March. Okay. Yeah. For both uh revamping the notification process and uh the signage.

2:22:08And then would are you still gonna be buying the signs in bulk or will they applicant by their own signs

2:22:14and how will that work? That's gonna be worked out in the next couple weeks. But yeah, the all of that should be we're targeting February February to March. I'm I'm making that public. But um uh that's how front burner it is for us. So hopefully we can hit that target. You know, there's a lot of priorities on the on the desk at the moment. And

2:22:33there's it's a change in size of the sign as well as a change in design of the sign so we're not gonna have that small illegible print any longer.

2:22:47Then you get rain and of course the ink runs off and the sign is blank after a few weeks, especially in summertime. So

2:22:55I and there's some issues about uh you know, where do you put them. Uh if you're in the middle of a stretch of roadway where r traffic's going fifty miles an hour and there's not a stop sign there, you know, where do you put it? How do you put it to catch people from both sides? You know, there's there's a lot of things that are in there, but it's in this it's in this package that whatever you bring for.

2:23:12No, I think that'd be good. Thank you guys.

2:23:15Yeah, I know there's some discussion in a previous workshop too about in the electronic age adding some electronic means of notification as well, you know, through whether it's through social media or what it is. So we we're a little bit archaic I think in some of the things that we do. You know, there's still notifications in newspaper which we know doesn't have the greatest readership compared to what it used to. So what newspapers?

2:23:38All right. Is there a motion?

2:23:43This is number It's

2:23:45PC

2:23:45seventeen. Sorry, I'm having a hard time keeping with the program today. Right. Yes, I will move to approve item PC seventeen.

2:23:54I'll second time.

2:23:55All right, motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right. Last one maybe? PC nineteen?

2:24:09Twenty minutes, huh?

2:24:15We approve that. That's right.

2:24:33Good afternoon, Lauren Fling, Planning and Development.

2:24:39Yeah.